seems low… way lower then what Terry got on the xhp70 version, he got a bit over 16 000 lumens… and the xhp 35 looks very low too not even close to the so called “7500” ? I hope your readings are way off and wrong the actual value…
maukka i refuse to believe the numbers can be real, i hope more people do tests and show what actual lumen output they get.
I have a question about something that could be helpful in sorting out potential issues with these lights. My XHP35 HI MT09R has a Serial Number “silkscreened” (NOT stamped or laser etched) onto the tailcap.
I suspect it is actually a lot/batch/production run number and doesn’t really change between individual lights produced at roughly the same time. Mine is different (higher) than the early (prototype) examples shown on the Haikelite website, which would make sense. The reason for bringing it up is that I’m wondering if it may help in positively identifying things like those early XHP35 HI MT09R “samples” that snuck out of the factory and apparently mostly ended up in Germany. Being able to use these numbers to isolate any problems would of course depend on how rigidly Haikelite adheres to generally accepted lot control procedures, so it would help to know exactly how they are assigning these numbers.
For openers, my first production lot black XHP35 HI CW MT09R tailcap number is: MT09R SN:/H2018A01I28K (the 4th from last character is an upper case i)
good point, those that have the light can check how their numbers look like? my light maybe arrives hopefully next week im dying of waiting so long haha i want this light now!
Here are my finding… turn on lumen. Using phone app light meter and ceiling bounce.
Haikelite mt09r XHP70 cw 15314 lumen
Haikelite mt09r xhp 35 nw 4689 lumen
Haikelite mt07s 5017 lumen
Emisar d4 xpl hi 4328 lumen
Blf q8 5771 lumen
Bonus
Tk75vn quad sst40 11707 lumen
Tk75vn quad XHP70 diffuse dome 17479
Acebeam X45vn. 24693 lumen
Any questions, just ask.
His numbers appear to be EXTREMELY close (or slightly higher) for many/most of the lights made by manufacturers that are widely recognized as NOT over-inflating their published luminosity numbers. He also publishes them in tabular format, which makes it a whole lot easier to sort through and compare individual lights than a s_load of disjointed half hour UTube “reviews” that only contain 30 seconds of useful information. THANK YOU/DANKE @Modden.
Sorry, my english is not so good.
Have you checked how sensitive your Luxmeter reacts to the light color [CW / NW]?
Have you checked if your lux meter reacts linearly at different brightness levels?
Do you have reference measurements with several other flashlights?
Which color does the pipe have from the inside? Is it dull or shiny? Shiny ist not good.
Is the sensor just fixed with tape? Then the position is not always the same.
Your pipe lets light from inside to the ouside and from outside to the inside?
and many more……
My MT09R triple 70.2 (Neutral White) has exactly the same tailcap number
Thank you! That tends to indicate we are talking about what MIGHT be sequential build/lot numbers here, and they are NOT (at least up to this point) indicative of emitter type, color or bin. Whether they will change with each future lot or driver hardware/firmware revision remains to be seen.
I’m very curious about the number on those German “sample” XCHP35 HI MT09Rs…
Well I’m owner of a DIY integrating sphere, too. What I can contribute to the discussion is that Modden’s measurements are mostly pretty close to my measurements. In the range +/- 100 to 200 Lumen.
At first: I want to give Modden a really huuuge “THANK YOU, Pal!” for measuring the MT09R’s in my hands - even if his results are actually even lower than what I measured…
Regarding the other points:
- the “SN” written on the tailcap is not a serial, but a batch number - all of the lights that come from one batch have the same number. in this case:
—> all the 70.2 (until now) seem to have the “21K” at the end
—> the first batch of the 35 (less than 50% output) have the “21K” at the end
—> the second batch of the 35 (the one around 4K from the GB) have the “28K” at the end
—> the number has no relation to emitter or bin
If somebody else has other number, please confirm it here.
By the way, in the TLF also other points showed up:
- the 70.2 seems to be very sensible regarding the type of batteries used - but without having a real system behind it. The values Modden mentioned are the maximum ones taken out of his several measurements.
- another member found out that it seems that the temperature control does not work properly - he tested his 70.2 in Turbo and ramped it down afterwards - but not very much lower - leaving it in tailstand. He burned his fingers by trying to put it in another position after a certain while. He tested it with a laser thermometer - nearly 100°C… I think he is also in the BLF, so he might confirm it here by himself.
@jmm244 : I am sorry - I already sent my “sample” (which from my point of view is just nonsense, because my distributor has a complete delivery with those “samples”) back to my distributor, so Modden has no possibility to measure it, too.
By the way: if somebody in Germany or nearby wants to have a decent flashlight: MSITC already lowered the price for the 35 drastically and also corrected the lumens in the description. I can highly recommedn the sales point due to his open information policy.
Is your data in tabular format? Accessible on the internets somewhere (link)?
With regard to data from believable equipment, corroboration is good, not redundant. It helps greatly to see numbers for other lights measured on the same device, particularly common ones we might be familiar with.
I found browsing though Modden’s data tables very interesting, as they tended to confirm some other things I have come to be suspicious of.
No I’m sorry, I’m more the color-measuring guy at TLF and add my Lumen findings directly in the respective reviews. So no table available.
Since Modden uses laboratory-measured lightsources to calibrate his sphere, I leave Lumen measurement (publication) to the guy with the best equipment…
Numbering on my lights:
Green XHP70.2 5000K ends with 24K
Tan XHP70.2 5000K ends with 28K
Both of my Blue 70.2 CW end with 28K
how could the NW version of the same light be brighter than the CW? Is that ever possible?
It is possible. If they are the same emitter bin, then I don’t think the CCT makes much difference. Usually warmer emitters are at a lower bin than the CW counterpart. Here are my examples for comparison (startup lux)
Acebeam H15 NW 324
Acebeam H15 CW 315
Olight H2R Nova Unit 1 NW (appears more like 4200k, sorry previously typo at 3200k) 318
Olight H2R Nova Unit 2 NW (appears more like 5000k) 280
I read a review on the Olight H2R (I think it might be Maukka’s) that the NW version is brighter than the CW version.
However, I’m a bit surprised that RS.FREAK's Lumenmessungen in einer DIY Ulbrichtkugel | Taschenlampen Forum shows the H2R CW much brighter than the Acebeam H15. Although my measurements are based off of less accurate ceiling bounce, my measurements have been repeatedly very consistent, and the ceiling bounce method favors spot lights over flood lights. Acebeam H15 is MUCH floodier than the H2R Nova so if it was an actual lumen comparison, my Acebeam H15s should be even brighter than my H2R Novas by a larger amount. Otherwise, I think the lumen ratings by RS.Freak seems pretty accurate.